- This topic is empty.
-
AuthorPosts
-
December 22, 2012 at 3:26 pm #780602
JoBParticipantSmitty
“The guard at Columbine exchanged gunfire with one of the gunman and started the evacuation. He got the gunman to fire at him rather than more kids. Now, he missed him when he shot at him, but drew fire away and sounded the evacuation. Sounds pretty darn good to me.
Th Ft Hood shooter was *shot* and paralyzed.
Virginia Tech is a HUGE campus unlike a grade, middle or high school. Tough to defend.”
and all is right with the world because someone shot back?
my kid was at Virginia Tech and would have likely been one of those in the crosshairs that day if she hadn’t decided she needed a little extra sleep that morning.
Many of her classmates weren’t so lucky.
I could go into a detailed analysis of what went right and what went wrong at Virginia Tech that day because what happened there came close enough to me to make it my business… but i won’t.
what i will say is that your glib “Virginia Tech is a HUGE campus unlike a grade, middle or high school. Tough to defend” doesn’t even begin to do that subject justice.
December 22, 2012 at 3:33 pm #780603
SmittyParticipant“i hate to burst your bubble.. but most of the time that armed guard you think is flying on the plane with you doesn’t exist.”
Yes, I know that. But the point is he/she “might” be onboard. I suppose you could do the same thing at schools, a mystery rotation so gunman have no idea if they are on duty or not. But, putting one at every school is a far less logistical problem then one on every flight.
“Columbine had an armed guard.”
Who drew fire from the gunman and called for the evacuation. Yes, he shot and missed, but god knows how many more kids would have been killed had he not been the target for those precious minutes. How is that not a success?
December 22, 2012 at 3:55 pm #780604
JoBParticipantSmitty..
if you know that
don’t you think terrorists do too?
our privacy has been invaded..
our freedom of movement curtailed
we now regularly accept harassment from minimum wage workers in a uniform that we wouldn’t tolerate from our city’s well trained policeforce as the price we pay for being able to travel
and we are no safer.
And you would like to replicate that for your kids?
Not a good plan.
December 22, 2012 at 4:12 pm #780605
TanDLParticipantWhat Dobro said… “Plus, this idea comes from the same nuts that think Obama is coming to take their guns and hate “big government” while their proposal is the most radical big gov’t police state idea to ever come down the pike.”
Clearly the NRA best represents gun manufacturers and only gives a rip about selling more guns – period! They’d love it if the gov’t bought more guns and sent armed personnel into the more than 90,000 schools in America. Then they could promote how the gov’t is too big and regular folks need to stockpile more guns to protect themselves against big gov’t. It’s all about capitalism folks.
December 22, 2012 at 4:24 pm #780606
c@lbobMemberI used to think the NRA was a mouthpiece for gun manufacturers, now I consider it a terrorist organization.
Anyone who pays into this cabal of evil is birds of the feather.
If the desire to blow stuff up is so strong in you that blowing little kids up is merely collateral damage, you need a psychiatrist.
Just like the shooters.
December 22, 2012 at 4:41 pm #780607
SmittyParticipantSo, is it the idea that bothers you or just the fact that the NRA proposed it?
Let me here your reasons why putting an armed guard in every school is a bad idea. I explained above how it is similar to air marshalls and how the armed guard at Columbine drew fire away from kids and called for the evacuation precious minutes before police arrived.
I am not saying it is the only answer – but tell me why, as a stand alone idea, it is bad.
Waste of money? Won’t work? Is a stand-in ploy for real fixes?
December 22, 2012 at 4:46 pm #780608
SmittyParticipant“if you know that don’t you think terrorists do too?”
What am I missing? The point is that nobody knows which flight has an air marshall therefore they all might have one. It’s a deterrent.
December 22, 2012 at 5:11 pm #780609
JoBParticipantSmitty
if the basic concept of deterrent worked,
do you think our prisons would be so full?
you suspend reason and up the ante for consequences
and expect different results?
December 22, 2012 at 5:28 pm #780610
JoBParticipantSmitty..
i am not playing the game where you set the agenda and the questions and then demand answers you have no intention of actually responding to
the reasons that people think putting armed guards in schools have already been cited and ignored by you
it’s time for a little critical reasoning
we have more private ownership of guns than pretty much the rest of the world combined
we have no political insurrection on our streets yet we have more kids killed by guns in the United States than soldiers killed in one of our war zones last year.
it is more dangerous for our kids to be in our homes and public space than it is for our soldiers to be deployed to a war zone
do you think there might be a correlation between the number of guns and the number of deaths by guns?
or a correlation between the availability of guns and the suicide rates in the military and in comparable age groups in the United States?
December 22, 2012 at 5:45 pm #780611
rwParticipantFrom our friends at FactCheck.Org:
December 22, 2012 at 5:55 pm #780612
SmittyParticipant“if the basic concept of deterrent worked,
do you think our prisons would be so full?”
So now we’re talking about prisons?
Stay on issue, JoB………
Smitty’s view:
Trained, armed guards in school > No armed guards in school.
Do you agree?
December 22, 2012 at 5:59 pm #780613
dobroParticipant“Let me here your reasons why putting an armed guard in every school is a bad idea.”
Still waiting for your estimate of how much it will cost to outfit 98000 schools with these guards, their equipment, training, etc.and where the money will come from. I’m sure you won’t want to add it to our awesome deficit. This is the question you’re busy deflecting.
And since you clearly answered “No” when asked if you’d like your kids going to school under armed guard, what’s you’re reason for thinking its a bad idea?
December 22, 2012 at 6:30 pm #780614
c@lbobMemberPutting cops in every school is no idea, at all.
It’s preposterous, deserves no consideration. Defending it is mental diarrhea.
December 22, 2012 at 7:00 pm #780615
SmittyParticipantPutting cops in every school is no idea, at all.
It’s preposterous, deserves no consideration. Defending it is mental diarrhea.”
Good answer.
Tell that to this little girl…..
http://seattletimes.com/html/localnews/2019957518_nrareax22m.html
December 22, 2012 at 7:02 pm #780616
SmittyParticipantdobro,
I have no idea, but how much is a child’s life worth? Somebody threw out 5 billion. What’s that? Ten Solyndra’s or one B-1 bomber per year? Fine. Add it to my property tax bill – as long as it keeps kids safe.
December 22, 2012 at 7:27 pm #780617
c@lbobMemberSafety is not the issue, the issue is impotence and the desire to get a big one to replace one’s shortcomings, pun intended.
Masterbate instead, fewer people are put at risk.
December 22, 2012 at 7:33 pm #780618
c@lbobMemberNBC news went to one of the gun orgies in Texas after the Newtown gun rape to ask about gun control.
Of course, there was some dimwit with a semi-automatic defending his right to hunt.
Using a weapon that fires more than two shots in succession is not hunting, it’s animal massacre.
I once knew a real hunter, he used bow and arrow. And he made the bows and arrows himself.
That’s hunting.
December 22, 2012 at 7:42 pm #780619
JoBParticipantDecember 22, 2012 at 7:46 pm #780620
dobroParticipant“Fine. Add it to my property tax bill…”
So, by giving this non-answer, you’re actually acknowledging that this isn’t a realistic idea that might help avert future tragedies, but a fantasy trope that merely diverts attention from people offering some ideas that could really be implemented.
Do you have any thoughts on, for instance, the six points that NYC mayor Bloomberg offered in an oped in USA Today? I summarized it in the other gun control thread.
December 22, 2012 at 7:47 pm #780621
JoBParticipantrw
stats on guns/violence don’t really answer the question of why anyone would think owning an assault weapon with access to unlimited ammunition is a good thing for anyone, do they?
the gun used in the latest massacre is America’s best selling gun
it’s not used for hunting food
December 22, 2012 at 7:54 pm #780622
SmittyParticipanto, by giving this non-answer, you’re actually acknowledging that this isn’t a realistic idea that might help avert future tragedies,”
Ummmm no.
I think it would work. And, I provided a local example of where it did. I also showed where the Columbine guard drew fire away from kids and called for an evacuation quicker than would have been accomplished otherwise.
You guys continually deflect.
One more time and then I am done.
Would putting trained armed security guards in schools make them safer? Yes or no?
Please, no references to cost, or masturbating or prisons or hunting with bows and arrows.
Yes or no?
December 22, 2012 at 8:04 pm #780623
JanSParticipantoh, please…the answer to gun violence is not more guns. No one wants to take away your guns, or your right to have them. But the socalled “assault rifles” have no place in our society, period. What does one want to do with them? Hunt rabbits? Hunt deer? There’d be nothing left of the animals. Hunt people? Bingo!
Smitty…you have kids? This is a terrible thing to say, but…sit and imagine the destruction to those little bodies after absorbing 11 shots from an assault rifle.It is devastating. It’s not white washed like on the TeeVee. Now envision that happening to your child.
School districts across the nation already have SRO’s, and can’t afford them any more. Volunteers? Hahahahaha! No matter what background checks, and training you give people, trigger happy volunteers will…um..volunteer…and we can really trust that? And after schools, where do we go? Grocery stores? Shopping malls? Police state? From the people who want smaller government? Seriously? SERIOUSLY?
In answer to your first question…NO! It will not make them safer, in my opinion. How many armed security guards…one? How about in a school with 2-3,000 kids? Two? Three? How many would make it safe? And, yes, the cost has to come into consideration. You can’t dance around it. Masturbation – mocking people on here gets you nowhere. If you want serious answers to serious questions, leave the other stuff out. You get what you give.
Merry Christmas!
December 22, 2012 at 8:06 pm #780624
dobroParticipant“Please, no references to cost…”
In other words, no references to reality.
Would banning the sale of assault weapons, high capacity clips and drums, requiring background checks in all gun sales, stiffening legal penalties for gun crimes, illegal gun sales and smuggling, make our schools (and society in general) safer?
Yes or no?
December 22, 2012 at 8:18 pm #780625
SmittyParticipantDecember 22, 2012 at 8:20 pm #780626
DBPMemberThe Times article Smitty cites above in #39 (“School cops helpful but costly”) convinces me that having a cop or a beefy security guy on school grounds would be a good thing. It does not convince me that the only thing that will stop a school attack is a gun. Far from it.
In the case cited in the article, a 17-year-old attacker dropped his knives when a cop confronted him. Yes, the cop was pointing a gun . . . but the attacker was just a kid, like Adam Lanza. He probably would’ve surrendered to the cop anyway. And if he didn’t, the cop could still have rushed him with a billy club or chair.
Richard Reid (“Shoe Bomber”) was wrestled to the floor by unarmed passengers.
Two muscular and VERY DETERMINED knife-wielding terrorists on United 93 were overpowered by unarmed passengers.
In spite of what the NRA would have us believe, guns do not impart super powers to ordinary mortals. Yes, they do give a marginal advantage in the hands of a trained defender, but at the same time they add an extra element of lethality to most attack/defense scenarios.
Even cops will tell you this. That’s why they’re supposed to use non-lethal methods whenever possible. Which is most of the time.
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.